In a novel survey-based experiment, researchers Dara Wald, associate professor, and Shumaila Bhatti, postdoctoral fellow, both from Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs, categorized the American public into five distinct groups according to how they perceive scientists’ credibility: enthusiasts, optimists, moderates, skeptics, and estranged. These groups differ significantly not only in how much they trust scientists but also in their support for science-driven environmental and health policies, as well as their political and demographic profiles.

The study highlights a critical communication gap: while scientists often rely on their expertise and factual knowledge to convey credibility, the public’s trust is more strongly influenced by perceived intentions and whether scientists are seen as genuinely pursuing the common good. “Science communication traditionally focuses on competence and research findings, but the public also demands transparency about the purposes and values guiding the science,” said Bhatti.

To probe these dynamics, the researchers exposed participants to articles covering both a non-controversial issue (salmonella) and a politically charged topic (heatwaves) and assessed how perceived credibility shifted across contexts. Results showed substantial variation: for example, moderates were contextually engaged, showing support in some cases but skepticism in others, while skeptics and the estranged groups consistently distrusted scientific motives and institutions.

Such divisions are not inconsequential. Wald explains, “For urgent threats like flood warnings, public trust in the motivations behind scientific advice is vital. Without trust, people may ignore warnings meant to protect lives and property—regardless of the scientific accuracy.” The findings suggest that addressing these motivational perceptions could improve public engagement with science, fostering more effective policy support and health behaviors.

The researchers call for scientists to broaden their communication strategies beyond explaining the “what” of their research to also communicating the “why”—the ethical commitments and intentions that drive their work. This nuanced approach may help bridge the disconnect and create more inclusive science communication that resonates with diverse audiences.

In sum, this pioneering work deconstructs the monolithic view of “the public” and underscores the importance of addressing motivational credibility as a cornerstone of building public trust in science. It opens the door to more tailored communication strategies that meet the public’s expectations, potentially transforming how science interfaces with society.

Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, supporting the project’s focus on refining our understanding of public trust in scientific institutions.

Subject of Research: Public perceptions of scientists’ credibility and motivations
Article Title: There is not one public: divergent perceptions of scientists’ source credibility in the United States
News Publication Date: July 10, 2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07609-x
Image Credits: Photos courtesy of Dara Wald and Shumaila Bhatti
Keywords: Science communication, Science policy, Environmental policy, Perception, Public trust

Central to their findings is the outsized impact of EurekAlert!, a news release distribution service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The study, published in the prestigious Science Advances, reveals that archaeology articles accompanied by a press release on EurekAlert! were approximately four times more likely to attain coverage in 15 prominent U.S. media organizations compared to those without such releases. This discovery underscores EurekAlert!’s function as a pivotal bridge connecting researchers and journalists.

This amplification effect may be partly attributed to the embargo system EurekAlert! employs, which allows journalists early access to embargoed scientific content. Such advance access enables journalists to thoroughly prepare and craft timely stories aligned closely with publication dates, enhancing the media’s ability to present fresh research narratives. Bridget Alex, a co-corresponding author from Harvard’s human evolutionary biology department, highlighted this mechanism as likely crucial in boosting visibility.

Significantly, the study reports that 70% of archaeology articles with EurekAlert! press releases received media attention in the specified outlets, while only about 22% of articles without press releases achieved similar coverage. In total, nearly one-third of the examined papers were featured by at least one major U.S. news source. These statistics vividly demonstrate that strategic science communication practices can dramatically alter the public resonance of academic research.

Beyond the presence of press releases, journal prestige also exerted considerable influence on media attention. The team documented that over 90% of archaeology papers published in high-impact journals such as Nature and Science received coverage. This suggests that news editors weigh journal reputation heavily when selecting studies to feature, implying that journal impact factor operates as a proxy for news value in editorial decisions.

However, the study also reveals significant geographical disparities in media coverage that warrant concern. Archaeological research originating from the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Palestine, and Australia was three times more likely to be reported than studies emanating from China or Taiwan. Despite China and Taiwan accounting for the highest volume of papers, their media coverage in U.S. outlets was disproportionately low unless centered on themes resonating culturally or scientifically with American audiences.

Proximity between research sites and newsrooms appeared to influence coverage probability, with cultural and geographic affinities playing substantial roles. For example, nearly half of North American archaeological studies were reported by U.S. media, reflecting potential biases favoring domestic or culturally proximate research endeavors. Such patterns spotlight systemic tendencies that shape which scientific stories gain prominence and which remain marginalized, independent of intrinsic academic merit.

Researchers caution against equating media attention with scientific value, noting that editorial gatekeeping often prioritizes newsworthiness over scholarly significance. Moreover, the interaction of press releases and journal prominence with media visibility underscores how external communication strategies and institutional support profoundly affect research exposure. This insight urges scientists aiming for public impact to collaborate proactively with press offices and leverage platforms like EurekAlert!

Nevertheless, the study acknowledges disparities in resource availability among researchers that may exacerbate inequities in scientific visibility. Not all scientists possess institutional support for crafting press releases or engaging with media distribution services, potentially skewing public representation of global research contributions. Addressing these structural imbalances is essential for fostering a more equitable scientific communication landscape.

While this investigation focused exclusively on one distribution service and a select group of U.S. news outlets, it raises broader questions about the global dissemination of science news and the mechanisms shaping public science literacy. Future research expanding to diverse platforms and international media contexts could enrich understanding of the pathways and bottlenecks that influence which scientific narratives reach society at large.

Ultimately, this comprehensive study confirms that strategic science communication, particularly through specialized distribution channels like EurekAlert!, significantly enhances the visibility of academic archaeology research. Coupled with journal prestige, these factors determine whether scientific discoveries extend beyond scholarly audiences to captivate public imagination and inform cultural discourse. For scientists committed to public engagement, harnessing these tools and addressing geographic and institutional disparities remains imperative.

EurekAlert! continues to serve as a vital conduit for research dissemination, enabling journalists timely access to embargoed and public press materials. With a network exceeding 14,000 journalists and 1,600 submitting organizations, its role in bridging the gap between the scientific community and media is substantial and growing. This study’s findings validate its efficacy and encourage researchers to utilize such platforms for broadening the impact and reach of their work.

The implications of these insights extend beyond archaeology, offering a blueprint for other scientific disciplines seeking to enhance public engagement through effective media strategies. By navigating the interplay of press releases, journal prestige, and media proximity, the scientific community can better steer which discoveries are amplified, fostering a more informed and engaged society.

Subject of Research: Archaeology research and its media coverage in the United States
Article Title: Regional disparities in US media coverage of archaeology research
News Publication Date: 2-Jul-2025
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt5435; https://www.eurekalert.org/
References: Science Advances (DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adt5435)
Image Credits: EurekAlert!
Keywords: Science communication, Archaeology, Scientific journals, Scientific publishing, Science journalism

This study delves deeply into the critical, yet often overlooked role of science journalists who serve as intermediaries between the scientific community and the public. Unlike earlier research primarily focused on public opinion metrics, this observational study employs means such as focus groups and expert interviews with 87 information professionals—including science journalists, institutional communicators, and researchers—to capture nuanced perceptions of trust and media dynamics. Such a methodological approach offers fresh insight into how journalistic practices, media ecosystems, and sociopolitical contexts intersect to shape the public’s relationship with science.

The country-specific media ecosystems analyzed demonstrate striking differences. Germany exhibits a relatively robust institutional infrastructure, with dedicated science desks found across major public broadcasters and reputed media houses. This institutional stability also promotes stronger professional networks and fact-checking regimes, which contribute to mitigating the sensationalism often associated with tabloid-style reporting. Conversely, Italy’s landscape suffers from fragmentation: limited stable employment for science journalists, a proliferation of freelancers, and a general undervaluation of specialized science reporting. A participant from Italy poignantly described science journalism as a luxury item, grabbing attention primarily during crises but otherwise marginalized in the media diet. Lithuania’s small market size and post-communist historical legacies further complicate the picture, where specialist science reporters are scarce, and science coverage typically falls to generalist journalists or academic collaborators.

A salient theme emerging from the discussions is the profound impact of growing ideological polarization on the public’s reception of scientific information. Journalists across all three countries highlighted how audience members no longer process scientific facts through an objective lens but instead filter the information through political identities and emotional affiliations. This phenomenon complicates the task of science communicators, who must now operate within a fragmented societal fabric where factual correctness alone does not guarantee credibility or acceptance.

The study also sheds light on the evolving journalistic workflow shaped by the rapid cadence of online news consumption. Participants criticize what they refer to as a reactive journalism paradigm, characterized by short-term, contingency-driven coverage that prioritizes sensational topics with high click potential, such as pandemic crises, at the expense of providing sustained, well-contextualized reporting on enduring scientific challenges. This digital-first editorial logic, in which online audience metrics dictate print agenda-setting, creates feedback loops that marginalize less-clickworthy but scientifically vital topics like climate change, contributing to a decline in public familiarity and, potentially, trust.

Importantly, the research underscores that the commodification of digital attention has unintended consequences beyond mere topic selection. When key scientific issues become overshadowed by misinformation and “alternative” narratives that exploit audience fatigue and ideological biases, pseudoscience gains fertile ground to spread. Journalists expressed concerns regarding the erosion of shared epistemic frameworks, warning that limited long-form investigative reporting allows misinformation to fill informational voids, undermining evidence-based understandings.

Against this backdrop, the role of systemic support structures emerged as a central factor influencing science journalism’s ability to foster trust. Rather than attributing trust-building solely to individual reporter skill or isolated story quality, participants emphasized the necessity for broader institutional frameworks. These include sustainable funding mechanisms, such as those underpinning public-service media, dedicated science desks, fact-checking units, investigative funds, and robust professional networks that bolster journalistic capacity and independence. Germany’s relatively more developed support ecosystem was cited as enabling more resilient journalistic practice that can withstand market pressures and short-term digital trends.

Another transformative insight from the study pertains to the evolving self-conception of journalists as active “trust brokers”—a role that transcends traditional notions of objective information conveyance. Journalists increasingly perceive their mission as mediators who cultivate dialogue, facilitate public engagement, and foster trust not through mere transmission of facts, but via relational and co-creative processes. This reframing signals an implicit shift towards participatory science communication, where journalists embrace transparency, humility, and audience interaction to reinforce the social contract underlying their profession.

To enact this vision, the respondents advocate for news formats that blend interactivity and collaboration. They cited emerging experimental models such as podcasts with live Q&A, digital communities for collective sensemaking, and platform-adapted content that retains scientific integrity while meeting audiences where they already are. While acknowledging these approaches are no panacea, journalists agree that moving beyond one-way dissemination towards dialogic engagement is essential for sustaining warranted trust in science in digitally mediated societies.

This comprehensive study thus reframes the conversation on public trust in science by centering the voices and experiences of science communicators themselves, revealing a richly textured interplay of media structures, societal contexts, and journalistic innovation. In doing so, it challenges simplistic narratives about a uniform breakdown of trust and instead presents trust as an emergent, negotiated condition contingent on intricate socio-political and technological factors. The research calls for policy and institutional responses that recognize trust as a systemic attribute necessitating long-term investment in robust communication ecosystems.

As we face accelerating scientific and environmental challenges globally, these findings provide crucial insights for stakeholders seeking to bolster the public’s engagement with science. They highlight the necessity of supporting infrastructures that empower journalists as facilitators of mediated trust, while encouraging new media forms that foster mutual understanding and co-creation between scientists, journalists, and diverse publics. Ultimately, sustaining science’s social legitimacy requires embracing complexity, resisting reductive narratives, and fostering resilient communication pathways attuned to the evolving digital age.

Subject of Research: Science communication, public trust in science, role of science journalists, media ecosystems in Germany, Italy, and Lithuania

Article Title: Science journalists and public trust: comparative insights from Germany, Italy, and Lithuania

News Publication Date: 22-Sep-2025

Image Credits: ITAS

Keywords: Science journalism, Science advocacy, Science communication, Communications, Mass media, Written communication, Social studies of science